Headlines

Peddling tolerance

In response to the controversy, the students asked me to participate in a forum on civility in politics. It was a great conversation under the beautiful arches of Penfield Hall.

We had the forum because a small group of liberal mostly female professors and a handful of students decided they could be the arbiters of which alumnus was an acceptable Founders Day speaker. It was abundantly obvious from their criticisms that while they hid behind some of my statements, they really disliked my worldview as a prominent Christian evangelical conservative.

Given their questions and statements, we can be certain that had the Pope himself been asked to speak, they would have been upset. Their standard seemed to be that if you believe in much of anything at all outside their beliefs, you are unacceptable no matter your accomplishments in life.

This is a problem with modern discourse. When either side of the political spectrum decides it can be the arbiter of who is or is not acceptable on the other side, the system cannot work. Conservatives have no place telling liberals who is or is not acceptable on the liberal side any more than liberals have of telling conservatives who is or is not an acceptable conservative.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Conservatives have no place telling liberals who is or is not acceptable on the liberal side any more than liberals have of telling conservatives who is or is not an acceptable conservative.

The entire point of doing so is advancing your own causes and weeding out your opposition. Once your opposition dies off, you win.

Ergo, anything that’s conservative is hateful and bigoted and must be crushed. Anything that is liberal you might not necessarily agree with, but you must first “open your mind,” then “tolerate” and then “accept.” And once they get America to the point of acceptance, then anyone who speaks out against the newly defined consensus is again hateful and bigoted and must be crushed.

This is a problem with modern discourse. When either side of the political spectrum decides it can be the arbiter of who is or is not acceptable on the other side, the system cannot work. Conservatives have no place telling liberals who is or is not acceptable on the liberal side any more than liberals have of telling conservatives who is or is not an acceptable conservative.

Uh hoh geez…Listen to him.
RedState runs their comments section like a Japanese prison camp.

Sorry for the OT, HA, but when will you report on the story that’s been headlining Drudge all day?

Even though Facebook (FB) reported $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits from U.S. operations in 2012, it will probably pay zero federal and state taxes—and even receive a federal tax refund of about $429 million—according to a Feb. 14 statement from Citizens for Tax Justice.

Yet another Obama donor gets a kickback.

Well, that’s happened so often, maybe it’s not that big of a story.
Except for the magnitude of the kickback!

Natalie Bourdon, a women’s and gender studies professor, told the Macon Telegraph I was unacceptable to speak at Founders Day because, “this specific event … [is] an event meant to celebrate Mercer’s heritage, founded on ideas of inclusivity, social justice.”

Mercer was founded in 1831 by white Southern Baptist men who excluded women and blacks. Her statement is revisionist nonsense designed to set the parameters for who she can self-righteously declare unacceptable. Ironically, according to a student review online, that professor “is not very tolerant of other people’s opinions.”

Tolerance is rarely necessary for those on a messianic mission of tolerance with serial ax grinding at stake. But at least we learned the white Southern Baptists in 1831 were willing to fight the Yankees thirty years later in the name of social justice.

I don’t always agree with Erickson, but here he is spot-on (and funny).